Memory Beta:Pages for deletion/File:Flag of the Terran Empire.JPG
thumb|[[: .]] This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete the attached image. *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *To vote simply add "Delete", "Keep", "Neutral". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Votes *''Keep'' -- Sci 00:08 9 MAY 2012 UTC Discussion I'm not sure what you mean when you say it lacks proper attribution. I created the image based upon what we saw in "In A Mirror, Darkly." How much more clear can the attribution be? -- Sci 00:08 9 MAY 2012 UTC :I'm talking about the addition of an attribution template that clearly states a permission of use, so that the image will then be categorized by the code in the attribution template. -- Captain MKB 00:16, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :: Okay, where is this attribution template that you want added to an image years and years after it was created and added? And why threaten the image with deletion rather than simply contacting me to ask me to update it? It comes across as quite unnecessarily aggressive. -- Sci 00:19 9 MAY 2012 UTC :I didn't even really nominate the image to deletion - you did. The "unattributed image" template simply puts a link to this discussion as a matter of convenience. I put the unattributed image marker on every image that was not in a category, since all attributed images will be categorized. You ascribe this to aggressiveness, but I was simply marking articles that lacked categories so that they could be corrected, by me or someone else. Since you went ahead and started this discussion, I assume you are "aggressively" approaching the problem of correcting it yourself. :The attribution templates are available in the drop down menus during upload, but they might not have been available years and years ago. The template for an image you yourself created is . -- Captain MKB 00:30, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :: The "unattributed image" template apparently includes a box that says that the image is being suggested for deletion. If it was not your intention to do so, I'm happy to accept that -- but perhaps it would be advisable to revise the unattributed images template to remove that, so that such miscommunications can be avoided. -- Sci 00:42 9 MAY 2012 UTC :I don't see any miscommunication about it though - images that aren't attributed should be immediately considered for deletion, but everyone's ignored them for a half-dozen years. Half of the ones I marked were from this weekend though. Actually starting the process is the reason why the templates are combined like that. Now that I've marked them, we should either clear the attrib notice by attributing them, in which case it will disappear, or we should begin the deletion process, with the link provided. I'm glad you're satisfied that these can be attributed, but I have to say the placement of the deletion link in the template was intentional. -- Captain MKB 00:56, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :: But the image WAS attributed. It's just that the specific manner of attribution hadn't been changed to the new attribution template adopted years after the image was uploaded. That doesn't mean the image should be considered for deletion -- that's needlessly antagonistic and frankly authoritarian. A COLLABORATIVE environment means one should simply contact the original uploader and ask him to update his manner of attribution. -- Sci 01:01 9 MAY 2012 UTC :Again, you are completely characterizing the situation with your own adversarial attitude. :Why be offended that I marked an image that needed improvement? A discussion isn't a "threat" - it's an opportunity to discuss. Your images were easily citable, so they never would have been advanced in the deletion process. You're taking it personally that your images needed a bit of code changed. Think about that for a second. :I had 150 uncategorized images in front of me. Marking the images was the only option I had. Contacting hundreds of uploaders from a half decade of uploads would have taken a lot longer than just marking them, and wouldn't have achieved comparable result to what we're looking at here. :And now, the list will be so short going forward, every unattributed image can be the subject of closer, more personal attention as you suggest. :And it is collaborative -- after all, I've attributed some myself, another admin attributed some, another newer user is contacting even newer users and educating them on how to fill out the templates. With the possible exception of a small minority who feel "threatened" by it, everyone has managed to pitch in and make a good deal of progress in getting everything cleaned up. I say, "problem solved". -- Captain MKB 01:24, May 9, 2012 (UTC) Mike, even if you don't intend it that way, the very act of starting the deletion process comes across as adversarial, especially with original images people worked hard to create, and especially when they ARE already attributed. The only difference is that you wanted to change the manner of attribution -- and instead of simply inserting the template yourself based upon the information already provided in the existing attribution, or contacting the originator, you put up a suggestion for it to be deleted. I'm not the only person who perceives behavior like this as hostile -- there's a reason so many people talked about being angry at you last year. No one's saying that you shouldn't put work into making Memory Beta better, and I understand that you didn't mean to come across as adversarial. But can't you find a way to work on projects like this WITHOUT starting the deletion process in the first place? Can't you just pause and consider others' feelings? And if the number was too vast, why not just break it down into small numbers to do at a time, to give more individual respect to each image and its creator? It's not like we have a publisher's deadline to meet. -- Sci 01:50 9 MAY 2012 UTC :There's no reason for "waiting" either - once i mark every image that needs any improvement, then the process of improvement can go at it's own speed. :I'm not concerned how marking articles makes people "feel" because there's no reason for you to feel anything-- but maybe gratified i'm willing to help the database by marking the articles. There's no rule against improving articles here, so I can't see why you'd suggest i stop that process. :I'm not even deleting the articles, nor am i submitting every one for deletion. I'm marking them all into one huge list, then weeding the list down by a number of attributes that need correcting. As I said, images that can be easily fixed, will be. :This discussion has ended. I'm going to be nominating more articles for deletion now, and this page is for an article that is no longer under discussion. This discussion is now archived. -- Captain MKB 02:07, May 9, 2012 (UTC) Admin resolution :The image got attributed perfectly. Great collaboration! -- Captain MKB 01:24, May 9, 2012 (UTC)